Comprehension.

Comprehension. I. I HAVE DETECTED an idea running rampant in the world to the effectthat people can actually understand things. Our training inculcates thisidea in us, and our language is structured in such a way as to almostordain ORDAIN. To ordain is to make an ordinance, to enact a law. 2. In the constitution of the United States, the preamble. declares that the people "do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America. that the notion be one of our bedrock tenets. The word"comprehend," for example, derived from the Latincomprehendere, meaning "to grasp," invokes feelings ofabsoluteness in our society, as its relative, "comprehensive,"invokes the feeling of "including all," though the bestdefinition of the word is "widespread." This is, of course, a sort of societal madness, since we can neverpossibly know all about anything. In order to actually understandsomething, one would have to take everything about it into account, andthis we cannot do, thanks to our finite duration, among otherlimitations. Even in the sciences--or perhaps especially in the sciences--doesthis lack of comprehension apply, because it is there that it is mosteasily demonstrated. What we actually do, when we pretend to understand reality, is tounderstand an analog of that which is under consideration. We build asimple structure which has certain important features in common withthat which we are studying; we build it according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. simple rules ofphysics and logic. We do understand the simple rules, because we haveinvented them. We find that our subject seems to follow the rules we have invented(because we have made the rules to fit the events), and so we say thatwe understand the thing under study. But what we really understand isonly the rules, which we, ourselves, have invented. Much of formallearning is practicing to remember the rules that have been invented bypeople who came before us, but nobody seems to mention this during ourformal training, and we are too often left with the misleadingimpression that we have actually learned something about the naturalworld, rather than a sort of history of man's inventions. This is most evident in the physical sciences, and a good examplemight lie in a description of how I learned about electricity. The firstthing I learned was that electricity embodied a flow of electronsthrough various conducting substances. "What are electrons?" I might have asked, but did not,because from a course in chemistry I already "knew" thatelectrons were negatively charged Adj. 1. negatively charged - having a negative charge; "electrons are negative"electronegative, negativecharged - of a particle or body or system; having a net amount of positive or negative electric charge; "charged particles"; "a charged battery" particles that were constituents ofmatter, whirling about positively charged Adj. 1. positively charged - having a positive charge; "protons are positive"electropositive, positivecharged - of a particle or body or system; having a net amount of positive or negative electric charge; "charged particles"; "a charged battery" nuclei just the way planetsrevolve around Verb 1. revolve around - center upon; "Her entire attention centered on her children"; "Our day revolved around our work"center, center on, concentrate on, focus on, revolve about the sun. I "knew" that particles were tiny bitsof matter, and that matter was solid, palpable stuff, in the aggregate,having various characteristics, but always retaining its basic"stuffness." In other words Adv. 1. in other words - otherwise stated; "in other words, we are broke"put differently , I pictured (and understood)matter as an analogy, the atom as a miniature solar system solar system,the sun and the surrounding planets, natural satellites, dwarf planets, asteroids, meteoroids, and comets that are bound by its gravity. The sun is by far the most massive part of the solar system, containing almost 99.9% of the system's total mass. , and thus thevery first thing I "learned" about electricity already had itsbasis in analogy. "What are those 'conducting substances'?" Theyare matter, already "understood." "Why are some of them 'conducting' and somenot?" Some substances hold onto their electrons more tightly thansome others do. "How do they do that?" etc. Then I learned that an "electromotive force electromotive force,abbr. emf, difference in electric potential, or voltage, between the terminals of a source of electricity, e.g., a battery from which no current is being drawn. When current is drawn, the potential difference drops below the emf value. " (voltage)pushes "electrons" through a "conductor" (wire) to a"resistance" (useful device) forming a "current" anddissipating "power" in the resistance. I learned that theelectromotive force is measured in volts, the current in amperes, theresistance in ohms, and the power in watts, and that these units alwaysbehaved in accordance with two rules, called "Ohm's law Ohm's law(ōm)[for G. S. Ohm], law stating that the electric current i flowing through a given resistance r is equal to the applied voltage v divided by the resistance, or i=v/r. "and "the power law." Here they are: E=IR P=EI We were encouraged to understand this phenomenon throughvisualization of what was known as, hold on to your hats, folks, a"hydraulic analogy The electronic Hydraulic analogy (derisively referred to as the Drain-pipe theory by Oliver Heaviside) is the most widely used analogy for "electron fluid" in a metal conductor. ," in which voltage equated to waterpressure, conduction equated to pipes, current equated to water flow,resistance equated to loss of head in pipes during flow or in overcominggravity during uphill flows, and power was equated to work done by waterin, say, a mill or a turbine. Thus it came about that I began to"understand" electricity as an analogy within an analogy, andthe fact that I have made my livelihood in large part through that"understanding" (in other words, it works!) is no indicationthat I have the faintest grasp of what is really going on. I do not.Furthermore, I cannot conceive of Verb 1. conceive of - form a mental image of something that is not present or that is not the case; "Can you conceive of him as the president?"envisage, ideate, imagine anyone understanding electricity inany other way than through analogy, given the limitations of our nervoussystems and the seemingly indefinitely large complexity of the universe. Please understand that this is in no way intended to fault the useof such analogies. Certainly, even the simplest electrical circuit couldnot be accurately designed without the knowledge and use of therelationships expressed in those two basic laws of electricity. Whatthis discussion is about, instead, is the notion that we delude de��lude?tr.v. de��lud��ed, de��lud��ing, de��ludes1. To deceive the mind or judgment of: fraudulent ads that delude consumers into sending in money.See Synonyms at deceive.2. ourselves into thinking we understand that which we do not understand bythe common practice of ignoring the learning mechanisms that we use inour educational practices. As long as I am intent upon not understanding things, I would liketo mention the notion of absolute position, a conception that, givenwhat we speculate about the universe, seems to me to make no sense atall, unless one hypothesizes a reference point to exist at the center ofthe (speculative) "big bang big bangModel of the origin of the universe, which holds that it emerged from a state of extremely high temperature and density in an explosive expansion 10 billion–15 billion years ago. ," whether one thinks of that eventas an origin, a line of demarcation line of demarcationn.A zone of inflammatory reaction separating gangrenous from healthy tissue. defining a change from a collapsinguniverse to an expanding one, or something else. In connection withthis, the question arises, "Which way to the big bang?" (In aspatial sense, not a temporal one.) In other words, where is the"point of origin" in this universal coordinate system coordinate systemArrangement of reference lines or curves used to identify the location of points in space. In two dimensions, the most common system is the Cartesian (after René Descartes) system. ? Doesthis sound like the needle-dancing angels of the classical philosophers?Consider this: When I first undertook to comprehend Einstein's theories ofrelativity, I was at once struck by a seeming lack of a frame ofreference for determining velocities. It was easy to see a certaindistance into the problem by analogy to the behavior of earthbound earth��boundalso earth-bound ?adj.1. Fastened in or to the soil: earthbound roots.2. a. practical velocities, such as a man walking through a moving train. Butthe earthbound velocities had the earth as an exterior reference. Wheredoes that leave one in determining the absolute velocities of two bodiesrelative to observers positioned upon the bodies having differentvelocities? And with respect to what absolute point of reference dothese velocities occur? Is there any meaning in any of this? There is nofixed, exterior frame of reference, and so the statements heard aboutvariations of the passage of local time aboard a moving body from thepassage of time aboard a "fixed" (i.e., having a differentvelocity) body seemed very muddy at first. As my study progressed, the muddiness increased, rather than theopposite. For example, in the simple non-mathematical illustrationsgiven in several different treatments of the subject that I read, actualvelocity was left out, and mere speed employed. Statements like "IfJohn boards a space ship and travels for X years at nearly the speed oflight, when he returns home all of his acquaintances will have aged anddied" require a fixed frame of reference in order to have anymeaning at all. If the speed alone causes the time difference, thestatement may be valid, but it doesn't make any sense when velocityis taken into account. In that case, John may have traveled X/2 yearsaway from home at a "diminished" time-rate, followed by X/2years toward home at an "augmented" time-rate, and I think onewould be justified in expecting the variations in local time to havepretty much cancelled out. My attempts to understand Einstein by analogy eventually came acropper CROPPER, contracts. One who, having no interest in the land, works it in consideration of receiving a portion of the crop for his labor. 2 Rawle, R. 12. after I read somewhere that to understand his theories, one mustuse tensor analysis tensor analysisBranch of mathematics concerned with relations or laws that remain valid regardless of the coordinate system used to specify the quantities. Tensors, invented as an extension of vectors, are essential to the study of manifolds. . So I started looking into that approach. The firststep, it seemed to me, was to learn vector analysis, a prerequisite, andI took the course. Expecting it to be easy for me, since I already hadhad considerable experience solving problems in physics through the useof vectors, I was astonished a��ston��ish?tr.v. as��ton��ished, as��ton��ish��ing, as��ton��ish��esTo fill with sudden wonder or amazement. See Synonyms at surprise. to find that at one point I completelyfailed to grasp the material being presented. After much painfulwrestling with this, I came to realize that my failure was throughhaving previously dealt with vectors by analogy,"understanding" them through their correspondence withphysical effects Physical effects is the term given to a sub-category of special effects in which mechanical or physical effects are recorded. Physical effects are usually planned in preproduction and created in production. that I could see and relate to laws of physics. LikeGod, the laws of physics are made, if not in man's image, at leastby man. They analogize a��nal��o��gize?v. a��nal��o��gized, a��nal��o��giz��ing, a��nal��o��giz��esv.tr.To make an analogy of or concerning: analogize the human brain to a computer.v.intr. physical reality, and Einstein's theorieswere nothing more than an attempt to make the classical physics ofNewton more closely fit the observed phenomena. Vector analysis, on the other hand, dealt with vectors asmathematical ideas irrespective of irrespective ofprep.Without consideration of; regardless of.irrespective ofpreposition despitewhether or not their characteristicscould be related to observable and measurable physical phenomena. Avector is a mathematical construct that has a magnitude and a direction,and they can intuitively be added and subtracted. Sailors have done itfrom time immemorial time immemorialn. pl. times immemorial1. Time long past, beyond memory or record. Also called time out of mind.2. Law Time antedating legal records.Noun 1. in navigation. Thus far are they analogous topractical physical reality. In my studies of physics, we had manipulatedvectors by addition and subtraction subtraction,fundamental operation of arithmetic; the inverse of addition. If a and b are real numbers (see number), then the number a−b is that number (called the difference) which when added to b (the subtractor) equals . In vector analysis, we were shownhow to multiply them, an idea that has no easy analog in observablephysics, and one that seemed extremely odd to me. Worse yet, we wereshown two different ways of multiplying vectors, each way givingdifferent results and having different meanings. I could not come togrips with this, lacking my accustomed basis for"understanding" the analogy. I did learn to grind out somecorrect answers to problems and I passed the course, but I never feltthat I knew what I was doing. I never went on to tensors, which are evenmore esoteric. I leave them to the geniuses who wrestle these ideas andthose of quantum analysis and win two falls out of three in an ongoingbattle that looks more and more like a seminar in philosophy than astudy of physics. II. The notion, as advanced in the previous section, that we are mad tothink we can "understand something" suffers a logical weaknessthat results from our habit of using a language structure that makes theincorporation of inappropriate generalizations into our speech andthinking almost unavoidable. I refer in this case to my use of the term"things," together with its siblings "anything" and"something." These words fail to differentiate between whatone may find existing in the world and the rules that one may inventabout them, and between what goes on in the world and what we say aboutthose goings on. As an example, let's look at the laws of physics. On the onehand we have human constructs such as F=Ma (Force=Mass X acceleration),E=M[C.sup.2] (Energy=Mass X speed of light squared), V=s/t(Velocity=distance over time), A=d/([sec.sup.2]) (Acceleration=distanceover time squared Time Squared may refer to: Time Squared, two graphic novels by Howard Chaykin "Time Squared" (TNG episode), the 39th episode of the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation ) etc., and on the other hand we have the actual,non-verbal, non-structured, non-mathematical internal knowledge of mostof those laws, derived when we were very small through our constantexperimental interaction with our environment. We know that if we goslowly it takes longer to get there; we know that when we fall down, thefarther we fall the more it hurts; we know that the faster the motion ofsomething that hits us, and the bigger it is, the more it hurts; we knowthat the farther we are from our Mommy, the fainter are her cries,though we never heard of the inverse-square law inverse-square lawThe principle in physics that the effect of certain forces on an object varies by the inverse square of the distance between the object and the source of the force. or anything much else inthe language. In our formal studies, we have evolved those mathematicalstructures, and they serve us quite well, for the most part, despitecertain flaws and uncertainties. As an example of that, refer to thesecond law of mechanics, V=s/t, which is not complete. According to ourbest understanding[.sub.1993], it should read V=s/t,x[degrees]y[degrees]z[degrees], because by definition, velocity includesboth a magnitude (speed) and a direction, and the quotient s/t onlygives us the magnitude. Yet outside of text-books, the law is seldomwritten with the direction indicated. So to say, as I have, that we cannot understand"anything" is misleading in our society, taking us into alabyrinth of trying to define "thingness," which I do notintend to include in the comprehension of reasonable expectations in thephysical world of which we are a part. I know that if I jump up in theair I can expect to fall back down, even though intellectually mybedrock adherence to a philosophy of chaotic genesis and probabilitydoes allow for the remote chance of something else. Should something else actually occur one day, I would be assurprised as any theist the��ism?n.Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.the , but the explanation I would offer myself wouldprobably be different from his. I expect he would see it as a miracleenacted by his god, while I would likely see it as confirmation ofprobability theory probability theoryBranch of mathematics that deals with analysis of random events. Probability is the numerical assessment of likelihood on a scale from 0 (impossibility) to 1 (absolute certainty). . I recognize that this illustration opens the door toaccusations that my perception of confirmation of my theory demonstratesbelief on my part. In response, I can only suggest that the appearanceof belief is inherent in any declaration of nonbelief in ourlinguistically-bound society which can neither trust in the sincerity ofnor even tolerate someone who is content to acknowledge his inability toknow. To say "I don't know Don't know (DK, DKed)"Don't know the trade." A Street expression used whenever one party lacks knowledge of a trade or receives conflicting instructions from the other party. and probably cannot know" isto say "nor can you know!" in the eyes of those whose livesare based upon absolutes. It means the same thing to me, but thedifference is that I am not threatened by the fact of his belief, thoughperhaps some time spent with history books and daily newspapers wouldmake me increasingly uneasy. The question of whether the world we perceive constitutes"reality" or not was raised in this connection by a friendwhose training and vocation is in the field of argumentation, or thewinning of arguments at any cost, including understanding; that is tosay, a lawyer. In my view, this sort of debate-society exercise hasabout the same value as does the question of how many angels can danceon the point of a needle. (Should you be interested in the classicallogical fallacies, this one is known as an "ad hominum";attack the opponent, rather than his argument.) I see reality asexisting apart from my perception of it, if only because it exhibits apersistent consistency that is entirely missing from dreams. However, Ithink there is legitimacy in questions about the nature of reality. The question of determining the nature of reality, I think, boilspretty much down to attaining an understanding of our ways of thinkingand talking about it. That which is "out there"(Korzybski's "event" (1), Bois' WIGO WIGO What Is Going On? , "what isgoing on" (2)), whatever it "is," is seen by us incertain ways which are determined by our experience, our physics, andthe structure of our language, and which do not provide understanding ofthe actual event, but instead, of a certain interpretation of the event. To say that a tree falling in the forest is not a real event in theabsence of an observer is to oversimplify o��ver��sim��pli��fy?v. o��ver��sim��pli��fied, o��ver��sim��pli��fy��ing, o��ver��sim��pli��fiesv.tr.To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error.v.intr. the case, leaving out thenecessary notion that the observer contributes to the observed inequally important part with that which is, or is not, a real event. Theword "event," as Korzybski used it, includes any given portionof reality under examination, and can as easily refer to a physicalprocess such as a football game. Korzybski's favorite example of anevent was an ordinary pencil. If any sense of reality is to be left us,we must leave to the philosophers any discussion about observed realityas a notion that is separate from the act of observation, along withquestions about angels dancing on pinpoints. The main implication of theterm "observer" seems clearly to be that there is something tobe observed. To call into question the reality of events apart fromobservation, then, is to destroy the meaning of the word"observer," which then might more rationally be changed to"creator." Clearly there is a sense in which each of us does create his ownworld, but my understanding of that sense is that it lies within anexternal structure, which we call the laws of physics, about which weabstract consistencies with which to form our own analogies, which intheir turn permit us to predict many physical consequences of ouractivities with considerable accuracy. The attributes of the humanpsyche that permit us to create do not, so far as I am aware, operate inthe realm of physics, but within the various realms we call,collectively, the Social Sciences. When I write about a young TommyO'Boyle Tommy O'Boyle was a college football coach at Missouri State University and Tulane. From 1947 to 1948, he served as Missouri State's head football coach, and was very successful going 7-2-1 and 9-2 in his 2 seasons, giving him an overall record there of 16-4-1. being able to jump a creek that is wider than his broadjumping capabilities because of chutzpah chutz��pahalso hutz��pah ?n.Utter nerve; effrontery: "has the chutzpah to claim a lock on God and morality"New York Times. , this is more than a tribute tothe Irish or a mildly pleasant word game; it is hard, cold fact.Tommy's determination to "make it" doubtless affects hisadrenal adrenal/ad��re��nal/ (ah-dre��n'l)1. paranephric.2. adrenal gland.3. pertaining to an adrenal gland.ad��re��naladj.1. output, which in turn gives him an advantage that allows him toexceed his "limit." REFERENCES 1. Alfred Korzybski Noun 1. Alfred Korzybski - United States semanticist (born in Poland) (1879-1950)Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski, Korzybski . Science and Sanity, InternationalNon-Aristotelian Library, 1933, et seq et seq.(et seek) n. abbreviation for the Latin phrase et sequentes meaning "and the following." It is commonly used by lawyers to include numbered lists, pages or sections after the first number is stated, as in "the rules of the road are found in Vehicle Code . 2. J. Samuel Bois. The Art of Awareness, Wm. C. Brown, Dubuque,Iowa Dubuque is a city in the U.S. State of Iowa, located along the Mississippi River. Its population was estimated at 57,696 in 2006,[3] making it the eighth-largest city in the state. , 1966. JACK FOSTER* * Jack Foster retired from Cal State Northridge's KCSN aschief engineer in 1989 after 37 years in the world of radio. Hevolunteered as desktop publisher for the Tucson Humanists and the localSierra Club Sierra Club,national organization in the United States dedicated to the preservation and expansion of the world's parks, wildlife, and wilderness areas. Founded (1892) in California by a group led by the Scottish-American conservationist John Muir, the Sierra Club , and founded Gadfly gadfly,name for various biting flies, especially those that attack livestock, e.g., the botfly and the horsefly. , a print periodical offering news andessays. Since learning of general semantics more than 50 years ago, heattended seminars with Samuel Bois and taught GS at Chouinard Instituteof Art. Respond or subscribe to Gadfly at gadfly@ultrasw.com.